Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

HanaBothWays t1_ivod5wf wrote

For that? There were lots of people doing that. “I didn’t believe people would hide their zombie bites but then COVID happened,” etc.

272

Ragnar_OK t1_ivoe9nb wrote

Insulting the police apparently. Dude made a joke that deputies were instructed to “shoot on sight” people that had Covid symptoms

143

HanaBothWays t1_ivoeoca wrote

Oh of course this is something about cops blatantly violating someone’s 1A rights. That’s pretty tame.

143

Ragnar_OK t1_ivof57n wrote

Not just arrested, arrested on a FELONY TERRORISM charge, with SWAT barging through the door and everything.

> Waylon Bailey thought it was some sort of cruel prank when about a dozen SWAT team members pulled up to his Alexandria, La., home with their weapons drawn. He hadn’t called sheriff’s deputies, and he couldn’t think of anything they’d want with him.

> But after they arrested him and took him into custody, Bailey learned he was facing a felony terrorism charge — over a joke he made on Facebook comparing the coronavirus pandemic to the zombie apocalypse featured in the 2013 film “World War Z” starring Brad Pitt.

> “SHARE SHARE SHARE ! ! ! ! JUST IN: RAPIDES PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER, IF DEPUTIES COME INTO CONTACT WITH ‘THE INFECTED’ SHOOT ON SIGHT….Lord have mercy on us all. #Covid9teen #weneedyoubradpitt,” read Bailey’s emoji-filled post.

even worse, the constitution literally doesn't apply to them because of "qualified immunity"

> But David C. Joseph, a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Louisiana, didn’t see it that way when he issued a ruling on Bailey’s lawsuit this summer. In his July 20 order, he dismissed Bailey’s claims against Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Office investigator Randell Iles, saying the investigator is protected by qualified immunity, a doctrine that makes it nearly impossible for citizens to sue law enforcement officers. Joseph also ruled that Iles “had probable cause to arrest Bailey for violating Louisiana’s terrorizing statute.”

> “Bailey’s post publishing misinformation during the very early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and time of national crisis was remarkably similar in nature to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre,” Joseph wrote in his ruling. “Viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances, Bailey’s Facebook post may very well have been intended to incite lawless action, and in any event, certainly had a substantial likelihood of inciting fear, lawlessness, and violence.”

> Under the state’s law, it’s legal to execute an arrest without a warrant as long as there’s a reasonable basis for believing an offense has been committed. Louisiana’s statute considers any “intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance dangerous to human life exists or is about to exist” as a terrorizing act. But such messages must carry the intent of causing people to fear for their safety or spark an evacuation.

139

HanaBothWays t1_ivofyf0 wrote

There were people posting things about ivermectin and how the vaccine was bad for you and threats against people who suggested wearing masks and this got the man SWATTED and a terrorism charge?

Fsck the police.

86

BruceGrembowski t1_ivpft5h wrote

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fsck -vy /the/police
e2fsck 1.42.8 (20-Jun-2013)
ext2fs_check_desc: Corrupt group descriptor: bad block for block bitmap
fsck: Group descriptors look bad... trying backup blocks...
Block bitmap for group 0 is not in group. (block 2553887680)
Relocate? yes

4

JagdRhino t1_ivokvdu wrote

That's right, continue to blame the tool, and not the user.

−47

tayroarsmash t1_ivp7v4o wrote

Nah, fuck the police. They’re not an object and we’ve decided following orders isn’t good enough in the Nuremberg Trials. Fuck em’. Hold our segments of state violence accountable.

16

JagdRhino t1_ivvb5mn wrote

Echo chambers are fun, look at all those negative likes

0

5DollarHitJob t1_ivokeoi wrote

I'm really confused... the post said that the police would shoot people with covid? So he's not saying people should shoot the police, right? What exactly would this post incite? People staying away from police?

This is really stupid.

82

Different-General-23 t1_ivoq10z wrote

I think the reasoning is that it would increase conflicts with the police because people would be more afraid that they would get shot on sight. i.e. if the cops are going to shoot me on sight then I may as well take a few shots at them first in self-defence.

13

ackillesBAC t1_ivq6qfl wrote

I agree that's the logic the courts are using. But not the reasoning of the police. ~~Do the police think people are that stupid? ~~ well yes they do trust a "news" outlet that had a disclaimer stating its "for entertainment purposes only"

The police employ people that are easily offended and under educated, teach them to be afraid of everything then give them guns, power and immunity

8

A1sauc3d t1_ivrsyil wrote

Yeah, that’s their reasoning. It’s just BS. Moral of the story, don’t fuck with the police, no matter how innocuous it may seem. Do, however, vote for candidates interested in limiting their power. Because the police get away with far too much. And whether or not they like you and how much money you have seem to be the largest contributors towards whether you see the inside of a cell. Our justice system is broken, you gotta pay-to-win, and being poor or a minority is an offense in and of itself. Sorry, got way side tracked there lol. Just hard not to vent about it when the topic of police comes up.

1

justforthearticles20 t1_ivqntue wrote

It potentially would instill fear in the General Public that Cops would shoot them if they displayed COVID-19 symptoms in public.

2

charlesfire t1_ivpjq5r wrote

>I'm really confused... the post said that the police would shoot people with covid? So he's not saying people should shoot the police, right? What exactly would this post incite? People staying away from police?

This is like saying that the orange man didn't cause January 6th because he never explicitly said to besiege the capitol. Of course he didn't say to shoot the police, but saying that the police shoot people on sight during a pandemic is very likely to incite the 2nd amendment absolutists to hunt down police officers.

−5

tayroarsmash t1_ivp7lg1 wrote

Qualified immunity only applies to things that there’s not a court precedent on. There is absolutely a precedent on how satire should be handled. Qualified immunity should not protect them here.

24

davidreiss666 t1_ivpu98t wrote

Sadly, you are being a reasonable person when reading and thinking about what words mean. You are, sadly, not a sitting members of the Supreme Court of the United States. This is how -- believe it or not -- qualified immunity works according to the Supremes.

(1) There has to have been a court ruling that declared X to be wrong or illegal for police to do something before Qualified Immunity was created out of nothingness in 1969.

(2) If no such ruling existed before 1969, then it's OK for police to do X. Not matter what.

(3) Believe it or not, the High Court has declared that (2) holds even in cases where the X-action was so fucking crazy that of course nobody had to bring a court case about it before 1969. So, while it was assumed before 1969 that these crazy things were not allowed, there is no court case that specifically declares it to be illegal for the police to do it.

(4) Now you are going to love this point, see point #3... well, because of how this all works, the lower courts (meaning all courts other the Supremes themselves) are FORBIDDEN for declaring that crazy action in #3 to be illegal or wrong for police to do. Even appeals courts can't do that. The Nine Supremes have only allowed this power to themselves, and in all the years since they created qualified immunity they have NEVER used this power. So, anything not forbidden to police before 1969 is allowed to be done by them until the day comes when the Supreme Court starts to fix the qualified immunity crazy.

Oh... and one last thing. Qualified Immunity is so fucking crazy, that the Supreme Court has declared that FAKE Police (literally people illegally impersonating police officers) are protected by qualified immunity. If you believe they were police, then they have Qualified Immunity. Even if later it turned out they were mob hit men sent to murder you by shoving you into a wood chipper. That's how fucking crazy Qualified Immunity has gotten.

QI does not make sense. Only the Supreme Court is made up of idiots. So that's why we find ourselves in this crazy fucking place.

10

420ipblood t1_ivv6je3 wrote

Qualified immunity applies to individual officers. You can still sue the department.

1

hawkwings t1_ivpj2zw wrote

As I understand qualified immunity, you can't sue individuals, but you can still sue police departments. If my understanding is correct, I think that qualified immunity is a good thing, because it prevents rich people from harassing poor people. Trump has threatened to sue many people. I don't know if Louisiana is different.

3

[deleted] t1_ivq7877 wrote

[deleted]

−2

HanaBothWays t1_ivq8wpe wrote

The “fire in a theater” thing is a common misconception, look up what the narrow 1A exceptions actually are. That is not one of them.

3

JackMitcham t1_ivofqf0 wrote

> For that? There were lots of people doing that.

The headline is careful to not say that. There's a reason they chose not to say that.

26

yhwhx t1_ivoih40 wrote

Defaulting to copaganda is instinctual for many "journalists".

36

gustopherus t1_ivos013 wrote

Defaulting to opinions that generate clicks is the instinct of most journalists.

2

davetowers646 t1_ivoj2pv wrote

'An arrest followed' - who uses the passive voice more than cops and the journalists who support their actions?

186

RnDanger t1_ivojzaf wrote

I hear this syntax and my brain automatically prepares for bullshit

69

MrRumfoord t1_ivpiur0 wrote

Yep. I feel the same about headlines that start with a pronoun. They just feel like clickbait.

5

SacrificialPwn t1_ivoyb7c wrote

"A person was allowed to stay at the local jail and meet a judge"

41

Hinermad t1_ivoq919 wrote

The Pentagon comes to mind. And a large percentage of people who have to testify before Congress.

5

fightswithC t1_ivu68jx wrote

Halloween candy was stolen after children were chased off my lawn

1

PuellaBona t1_ivq6hiw wrote

And this is why they're referred to as "The Washington Compost"

0

Insipid_Pedantry t1_ivofwax wrote

Amazing how we have rights until we attempt to use them. Also amazing how full of SHIT most police (and the judge in this case) are when attempting to parse the Highest law of the land. This is a first amendment case, pure and simple.

81

internetperson94276 t1_ivooltg wrote

Don’t you love learning how the world actually works vs government marketing and PR

22

Rustybot t1_ivpyk1l wrote

First amendment does not protect ones right to incite violence and mayhem.

−13

PuellaBona t1_ivq6lfd wrote

Satire is protected under the 1st amendment

21

Rustybot t1_ivq70kr wrote

Correct. And if you know anything about satire, you know that it often, predictably gets confused for truth.

He was arrested, not convicted. The charges were dropped.

−14

PuellaBona t1_ivqdfep wrote

Funny, you say arrested when he had a fucking swat team bust in his house. Let's not pretend this shouldn't have happened in the first place.

16

Rustybot t1_ivqigno wrote

Yeah, but if you reduce the headline to “Sherrif’s office slightly abuses power by enforcing marginal transgressions for personal BS reasons” this would stuck in the pile with all the others. This is the core of our police system.

−11

17times2 t1_ivrq4p3 wrote

> does not protect ones right to incite violence and mayhem.

In what way did he incite violence and mayhem?

6

Rustybot t1_ivrqvdc wrote

Such was the arresting conditions.

−1

17times2 t1_ivrr9mm wrote

So you can't actually answer; you're just deferring to the cops arresting him as proof he committed a crime.

6

Metalhippy666 t1_ivs4zcw wrote

Well some of the folks on this site are simple proud folk, the common clay of the land... you know morons.

6

WirelessBCupSupport t1_ivoksyb wrote

The guy lives in Louisiana. I mean, you have to know you can't joke about the law there. Just ask Sheriff Buford T. Justice...

26

thatnameagain t1_ivq73qa wrote

Based on these responses I assume the majority of you didn't read the article.

  1. He should not have been swarmed with a Swat team for this or arrested. Simply informing him he had violated the law and asking him to remove the post would have been sufficient and saved everyone a huge headache.
  2. He wasn't arrested because of anything related to COVID misinformation
  3. He was arrested because the tenor of his post made it sound like police were literally shooting people on sight right then and there, and obviously this creates a potential for a violent "response" by others. This absolutely crossed the line into incitement, albeit unintentionally. It's not a free speech issue.
  4. The real issue here is Louisiana's draconian pro-police laws - "Under the state’s law, it’s legal to execute an arrest without a warrant as long as there’s a reasonable basis for believing an offense has been committed"
  5. If your takeaway from this is "Big government doesn't let us have no freedom of speech" instead of "The police have way too much power to do what they want and that undermines the legitimacy of law and hurts our rights" then you missed the point.
8

WlmWilberforce t1_ivrhfrx wrote

>If your takeaway from this is "Big government doesn't let us have no freedom of speech" instead of "The police have way too much power to do what they want and that undermines the legitimacy of law and hurts our rights" then you missed the point.

These two things are definitely not in conflict.

7

thatnameagain t1_ivsaknk wrote

They're not in conflict in abstract principle, but they are in the sense of the article.

State-level laws ands state's rights are often cited by conservatives as the proper alternative to "big-government" (i.e. federal government). This was a state law that brought the police down on him even though the main issue is that the police chose to handle it like thugs instead of rational people.

1

peterkeats t1_ivvfwpg wrote

His post:

> SHARE SHARE SHARE ! ! ! ! JUST IN: RAPIDES PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER, IF DEPUTIES COME INTO CONTACT WITH ‘THE INFECTED’ SHOOT ON SIGHT….Lord have mercy on us all. #Covid9teen #weneedyoubradpitt

1

ArrrGaming t1_ivrer7o wrote

Sorry, can't read it - it's demanding that I sign up and lying that there'll be no obligation. What it's not saying is that I will be forever hounded via emails, etc.

7

WlmWilberforce t1_ivrhli5 wrote

So...are you ready to subscribe?

^(democracy dies in darkness)

4

hexbatch t1_ivs1al6 wrote

Yes! I want to subscribe. Please send me my monthly ten free articles and sign me up for a dozen spam mails each week

2

taosk8r t1_ivuh9xa wrote

Just get an extension that turns off javascript with a click. I like 'quick javascript switcher', it only works per tab and had so far defeated all the attempts to prevent me from reading articles.

1

SJReaver t1_ivom9eh wrote

He jokingly shouted fire in a crowded movie theater.

−58

ohhnoodont t1_ivpyz3c wrote

Funny thing about this tired analogy, it was first used in the decision to convict someone for voicing opposition to the draft during world war 1. A decision that was later overruled. The original judge even regretted his decision.

As it turns out, in most cases it's actually not illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Wikipedia: Shouting fire in a crowded theater

13

Dalisca t1_ivp7r4u wrote

Yeah, totally comparable.

9

charlesfire t1_ivpkqra wrote

Pretty much, yeah. That "joke" was made during a time where everyone was on edge about covid-19. Even if it's just intended to be a joke, what he said is very likely to incite some people to attack police officers. Assuming it really was a joke, I think the police response was exaggerated, but I still think they should have done something (warning maybe?).

−18

Dalisca t1_ivpp0yd wrote

We have bigger problems than Covid if people can be incited to attack police officers over a comment regarding imaginary monsters.

Bombs are real. Fires are real. Zombies don't exist.

8

charlesfire t1_ivq5w2p wrote

>We have bigger problems than Covid if people can be incited to attack police officers over a comment regarding imaginary monsters.

Well, yeah. You have a big problem of people believing stupid shit like that. Remember pizza-gate? January 6th? The Michigan governor kidnapping plot?

>Bombs are real. Fires are real. Zombies don't exist.

1 - He never said police officiers were shooting zombies. He only made a comparison with police officers shooting zombies.

2 - The earth isn't flat, covid-19 isn't fake, essential oils don't cure cancer, dnd isn't a gateway to satanism, god isn't real and yet there's a lot of people people that believe the opposite of all of these things. Stop assuming people aren't stupid and gullible because that's not true. They are stupid and they are gullible.

−2

17times2 t1_ivrr5cz wrote

> Remember pizza-gate? January 6th? The Michigan governor kidnapping plot?

Yes, all of them were the efforts of many people over months and months all building on each other's conspiracies. Pizzagate was 2 months of 4chan and qanon boards going ALL IN on the conspiracy; it dominated their boards. Subreddits were made here supporting it. Jan 6 had dozens of members of government circulating the conspiracy. The Whitmer kidnapping involved a militant group and 9 months.

A single post filled with emojis and hashtags like #saveusbradpitt on someone's personal account, and then being raided within 3 hours, is not anywhere close to an appropriate response.

0

charlesfire t1_ivryj9n wrote

>A single post filled with emojis and hashtags like #saveusbradpitt on someone's personal account, and then being raided within 3 hours, is not anywhere close to an appropriate response.

1 - You know that he's not the only one to post bullshit related to covid-19, right? There have been a shit ton of post on multiple social media platforms about "authorities turning tyrannical and kill people because covid-19" and most of them were totally serious.
2 - The article says "emoji", but doesn't elaborate and that can make a huge difference. There's a big difference between 😵🔫 👮and 😂😂😂 for example. They don't convey the same meaning at all.

0

17times2 t1_ivs5734 wrote

> You know that he's not the only one to post bullshit related to covid-19, right?

Sure, lots of people post BS about it. Social media is absolutely soaked in it. Despite that, none of my family, despite propagating conspiracies, have been arrested for it.

> most of them were totally serious.

And this one was not, supported by the cops not even being able to charge him with anything, not even with what they claimed they were arresting him for.

0

PuellaBona t1_ivq6u13 wrote

No, it wouldn't have. It was obviously a joke because ZOMBIES DON'T EXIST.

4

charlesfire t1_ivq78vn wrote

NOBODY FUCKING CLAIMED THEY DID EXIST NOR THAT POLICE OFFICIERS WERE SHOOTING ZOMBIES OR THAT PEOPLE BECAME ZOMBIES.

Maybe you should read what the guy fucking wrote.

−4

PuellaBona t1_ivqdp06 wrote

Don't yell, dude. I guess that's why you keep putting joke in quotation marks. You don't really understand them.

3

[deleted] t1_ivqep60 wrote

[removed]

−4

PuellaBona t1_ivqifqm wrote

Have you tried meditation or getting off social media for a while? Being this angry cannot be good for your blood pressure.

1

charlesfire t1_ivqnbf7 wrote

Wow. Deflecting the conversation. Also, stop projecting. I'm not angry, I just think you're thick.

0